Letter to Rachel Liel (NIF Exec Dir) in response to the Interview in the Jewish Chronicle

NGO Monitor

June 04, 2010

Dear Rachel,

I read your interview in the JC (May 21 2010) with interest and sadness. While the statements about Israeli democracy are noble, they mask the bitter realities evident in grants provided by the New Israel Fund for groups that promote the antithesis of these principles. In parallel, NIF’s crude and personalized attacks against me and NGO Monitor’s systematic research also reflect a disdain for informed debate and free speech.

Israel is under unprecedented attack using false charges of “war crimes” and “apartheid”, led by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that exploit the language of morality. Such allegations are used to justify BDS – boycotts, divestment, and sanctions – aimed at isolating and then eliminating Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Your claims in the JC interview not withstanding, the evidence clearly shows that NIF-funded groups provide the underpinning for many of these campaigns, including Goldstone’s indictment. NGO Monitor’s fully referenced research provides the evidence, including listing of hundreds of footnotes in the Goldstone report citing statements by NIF-funded NGOs. Officials from these NGOs also presented highly tendentious anti-Israel testimony, and 8 NIF grantees (a combined $2.2 million in 2008) submitted a joint statement to Goldstone alleging “human rights violations for which Israel must be held accountable.” In addition, B’Tselem, Adalah, ACRI, Gisha, PHR-I, and Yesh Din continue to lobby governments to legitimize the report’s extreme biases and endorse its recommendations.

The damage from NIF grants to such groups is amplified by the additional and much greater funds provided by European governments. When asked to explain why they support NGOs involved in anti-Israel demonization, many European officials cite the NIF as the source of legitimacy. The processes by which the European Union allocates these funds are also entirely secret, violating the essential democratic principle of transparency and the EU’s own regulations.

This hypocrisy from Europe is the reason for the Knesset legislation to reinforce transparency requirements to end the secret funding provided by foreign governments. But instead of supporting the public’s right to know, the NIF and its NGO allies have undemocratically boycotted the discussions. The NIF/NGO coalition has also grossly misrepresented this legislation, including the false allegation in your JC interview that this would “make it much harder for human rights organisations to operate in Israel and receive foreign funding”.

You and other NIF officials also claim to oppose BDS and other forms of the Durban Strategy of political warfare against Israel, but NIF grantees continue to lead these campaigns. For example, an official from the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) participated in a May 12 anti-Israel divestment rally in Brussels, targeting a bank with an Israeli subsidiary. One rally leader drank fake blood out of a wine glass – an apparent reference to the libel of Jews drinking Christian blood as wine – to highlight Israel’s alleged brutality. NIF funding for CWP and its BDS projects cannot be justified under the banner of pluralism and the right to dissent.

The destructive impact of these and similar events is exacerbated by NIF’s use of crude and personalized attacks on perceived “enemies” – precisely the type of campaigning that you and Naomi Chazan claim to abhor. I have no doubt that you are sincere, but many officials that speak for NIF are trench fighters out to destroy opponents, and with no real commitment to free and fair debate.

NIF’s advertisement in the Jerusalem Post is the latest example. While imitating NGO Monitor’s style and “compare and contrast” approach, the NIF text consists of hysterical allegations with no references. In contrast to the NGO Monitor text, NIF’s response is cheap political agit-prop, and avoids the substantive issues. Perhaps you quickly approved this embarrassment, or were not even consulted. Either way, an apology is in order.

At the close of the JC interview, you acknowledge the need to “examine ourselves and think a lot more about how we reach a wider public that we have failed so far.” Here, we agree. No country is perfect, including Israel, and the combination of continued conflict, occupation and terror present difficult challenges. But Jewish moral principles, including human rights norms, have been cheapened to the point of becoming meaningless by the Goldstone process and the wider NGO-based bombardment of false allegations of “war crimes”. NIF can restore its tarnished reputation and commitment to democracy by ending support for this destructive process.

I look forward to your response,

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg President, www.ngo-monitor.org

Edited version, as published in Jewish Chronicle, June 4, 2010

I read your interview with Rachel Liel, executive director of the New Israel Fund (JC, May 21) with sadness. Her noble statements about Israeli democracy mask the bitter realities evident in grants provided by the NIF to groups that promote the antithesis of these principles. In parallel, NIF’s crude, personalised attacks against me and NGO Monitor’s systematic research also reflect a disdain for informed debate and free speech.

Israel is facing false charges of “war crimes” and “apartheid”, led by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), allegations used to justify BDS: boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

NIF-funded groups provide the underpinning for many such campaigns, including Goldstone’s indictment. NGO Monitor’s fully referenced research includes hundreds of footnotes in the Goldstone report citing statements by NIF-funded NGOs. Officials from these NGOs also presented highly tendentious anti-Israel testimony, and eight NIF grantees (a combined $2.2 million in 2008) submitted a statement to Goldstone alleging “human rights violations for which Israel must be held accountable.”

When asked to explain why they support NGOs involved in anti-Israel demonisation, many European officials cite the NIF as the source of legitimacy. This hypocrisy from Europe is the reason for the Knesset legislation to reinforce transparency requirements to end the secret funding provided by foreign governments. But instead of supporting the public’s right to know, the NIF and its NGO allies have boycotted the discussions.

On May 12, an official from the Coalition of Women for Peace, which receives NIF funding, participated in an anti-Israel divestment rally in Brussels. One rally leader drank fake blood from a wine glass — evoking the libel of Jews drinking Christian blood — to highlight Israel’s alleged brutality.

At the close of the JC interview, Rachel Liel acknowledges the need to “examine ourselves and think a lot more about how we reach a wider public that we have failed so far.” Here, we agree. No country is perfect, including Israel, and the combination of continued conflict, occupation and terror present difficult challenges. But Jewish moral principles have been cheapened by the Goldstone process and the wider NGO-based bombardment of false allegations of “war crimes”.